From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,afb4d45672b1e262 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Making money on open source, if not by selling _support_, then how? Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.14.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <7NOdne-iYtWmIafZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@megapath.net> <292bf$443bb4e4$45491254$20549@KNOLOGY.NET> <1oc8e78n8ow5e.1mhfktiyo0wur$.dlg@40tude.net> <_pd0g.5775$yQ.1726@trnddc07> <1x8oeb12n9s76$.1msb6vrl8k885$.dlg@40tude.net> <1wtvonm5gyd6z$.1i5f4i9pjd5zx$.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 20:07:07 +0200 Message-ID: <19wquaj7ti24n.hh1je36ky5re.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Apr 2006 20:06:50 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 15f89dc7.newsread4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=29KB On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:17:48 GMT, Justin Gombos wrote: > On 2006-04-16, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> >> I can't conclude that without knowing the process. If I will not pay >> my electricity bills, the fridge might stop cooling. > > Of course. You have to understand a process before you can make > changes to it, which is why it's irrational to advocate extrinsic > rewards for developers without understanding why intrinsic motivation > has worked for the past 20 years. You have no reasonable basis to all > promote additional extrinsic rewards. Additional? I challenge this division. There is no such thing as intrinsic motivation, in the sense that it cannot be transferred from one person to another. The sources of any such motivation are extrinsic. Let's count all these sources, their social and economical cost. Then we can really judge. >> Death of open source is not my concern. Mine is sustainable growth, >> which is the basis of our [western] civilisation. We observe what >> happens if it just stops for a relatively short period of >> time. Europe's two major countries Germany and France provide an >> excellent case. A projection of the current state of software >> development in the future implies everybody to become a >> programmer. It is a far more serious problem than terrorism. > > The meaning behind my use of the term "death" was lack of sustainable > growth. And as I've pointed out, your concern is unfounded. Simply > measuring the size of the sourceforge archives makes this evident. Is your point that the exponential demand on software will be covered by sourceforge projects? I take my hat off to your optimism. >>>>> The openness of the code *is* one of many components of quality. >>>>> Besides the quality built into the process of open source >>>>> development, you also have the benefit of potentially millions of >>>>> eyes looking at the product and discovering defects in the code. >>>> >>>> This is a model of wasting human resources in first place. >>> >>> Wasteful in what sense? >> >> It is extensive, low productive, unsafe way. Million eyes is >> millions of man hours spent. > > To be wasteful is to have expense w/out return. Yet this is a reverse > case - getting a high return on little (if nothing) investment. The > consumer pays *zero*, not a single man hour, and in return receives a > product that is very thoroughly debugged. You consider here only one side, of the consumer. But for humankind nothing is for free. Each millisecond of everybody counts. Million eyes where only two are needed is disastrous. This time should be spent on space exploration, fusion reactors, human genome, nanotechnology etc. If sourceforge indeed grows, as you say, then we are lost. >> What is worse a community of dishwashers might spent trillion years >> in building Perpetuum mobile, while one qualified physicist could >> tell you in 1s, that it is rubbish. > > OTOH, if these dishwashers are qualified physicists, such an effort > would never occur. Is it normal when qualified physicists wash dishes? I don't ask you to give any moral assessment, just note that any self-regulating system atrophies unused limbs. The society of dishwashers cannot be competent in physics for any long period of time. >>>> Secondly it effectively puts a limit to the complexity and quality >>>> of the software. >>> >>> Quite the opposit. It's the closed source model that limits >>> complexity as well as quality. You can be limited to the mental >>> capacity of those hired, or you can be limited to the mental >>> capacity of a subset of the world population, which can well exceed >>> the size of any one company. >> >> It is a flawed argument. It is known as "brain amplifier", a concept >> of gaining knowledge, recently bubbled again as genetic >> algorithms. Each cubic meter of air contains encoded Britain >> encyclopedia as well as the Great Theory of All. The problem with >> it, is that there is no way to select the signal from >> noise. Averaging world population gives you Britney Spears, if you >> are very lucky, it does not give you Albert Einstein. > > The benefit of brain quantity depends on the effort. If the effort is > a creative one, and the component is small enough, then sure, your > stance would be reasonable because too many producers would become > obsticles. But if the effort is to find software defects and report > them, then the benefit of signal / noise seperation is lost. All good > encryption algorithms are publicised for this very purpose of > leveraging what you're calling "brain amplification." You cannot > depend on one or even a handful of experts to find flaws in a complex > algorithm. As intelligent as they may be, flaws are still overlooked. > So to ensure the strength of an algorithm, you *publish* it to get the > masses looking at it. Among the masses, many who may fit your profile > of "Britney Spears" won't crack the algorithm (and in fact won't even > be looking at it), but they do nothing to stop the one who does find > the shortcut that cracks the puzzle (who may be an Einstein, but not > necessarily). > > The open source community has the scalabilty to throttle "brain > amplification" to a level that serves the purpose, dividing large > creations into small pieces, or defect capturing en masse. Whereas > closed source efforts are inherently limited - and often fail to work > efficiently with the limited resources that they do have. Nope. There are trivial statistical observations, why this does not work. You can't solve exponential problems by brute force. Nine pregnant women don't give birth in one month. >>>> I meant division of labor. Customer is somebody who is specialized >>>> to produces something else. >>> >>> Even that definition is unrealistic. Consumers are not necessarily >>> so specialized that they're incapable of tailoring tools that are >>> initially generic to help them do their job better. >> >> It is so in software developing. The reason for that is an extremely >> low technological level of. It is a transitional stage. Either it >> becomes a normal engineering with clear division of labor and a very >> moderate number of people involved in, or our civilization will >> collapse. What you propose is similar to building pyramids by >> ancient Egyptians. > > Certainly not, because there are enough similarites between the > different software products that if someone is so specialized that > they cannot work on the tools they use, they are likely to be > inadequite for doing their own job. If you're so specialized in Ada > that you're incapable of using other languages, for example, then > you've failed as a developer to become enriched with concepts that > build on your area of specialization. Learning Ada will improve the C > skills of a specialist who has no direct use for Ada. As an Ada > developer, I often create non-ada tools to process the Ada code. For > example, I might write a sed script to make a global edit to all my > Ada code. If I were so specialized that I could not create my own > tools on the fly, or tailor my environment, I would not be as > productive. If you're specialized to such a degree, you're not only a > minority, but impractical. A good specialist *necessarily* > understands their tools. Again, if it is so, the we as humans have a damn great problem. You are talking about different strategies of feeding horses, where the problem to solve is the world-wide transportation system. If programming become engineering, that will not be done in any of existing languages, even in Ada. How can you assume that a jet propulsion laboratory would keep on designing bridles? > Moreover, if you still insist on such a definition for "consumer", it > doesn't matter anyway because you've still failed to show that > consumers are hindered by having the extra ability to modify their > tools. I never said this. Consumers should have an ability of, they shall not have any necessity of. You can modify your car, but you needn't to. A system where everybody have to repair his/her car is badly ill, former SU was such. >>>> When I say that neither of existing systems works, I mean that this >>>> selection does not happen. Firstly, there is no efficient mechanism >>>> of selection. >>> >>> Right, so you cannot be completely dependant on selection of talent >>> for quality products. >> >> I must. > > You conceded on imperfections in the selection process, then you said > you *must* limit your quality assurance solely to talent selection. > There is no tolerance in such a model for talent selection flaws, so > effectively you've put yourself at high risk for poor quality > production. How so? Under any circumstances a system that selects better candidates for each position is better. >>>> Secondly, there is no motivation for people to become >>>> selected. Qualified programmers don't grow on trees. >>> >>> Who's to prevent a qualified programmer from producing open source? >> >> A lack of a system that rewards qualification. > > How? Why should they? > Your position here is hinged on a false dilemma. Washing dishes and > closed source software are not the only options for a day job. There > are just too many jobs to list. Browse through listings at > monster.com if you want to see what's out there. > >> If you cannot sustain yourself by programming, you will do something >> else. You might continue to program in your spare time. But the next >> generation will drop the very idea of becoming a programmer. > > Why? I don't know, it just works this way. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de